PDA

View Full Version : Brady's Goal this year: The "Owner Authorized Handgun" approach


Dont Tread on Me
02-04-2008, 2:00 PM
From Brady....

The California Brady Chapters and Women Against Gun Violence are looking to improve its score this year by making ammunition regulation and "Owner Authorized Handguns" their top priorities in this year's legislature. Both organizations support reasonable regulations on handgun ammunition sellers and purchasers to ensure criminals and unauthorized people do not have easy access to bullets.

The "Owner Authorized Handgun" approach uses technology that allows only authorized handgun users to fire their weapon and will make help decrease unintentional shootings amongst children and deter suicide attempts by troubled teens.

"We make it too easy for dangerous people to get dangerous weapons. In most states, there are few or no laws to prevent gun violence," says Paul Helmke, President of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. "This is true at the federal level as well. We need effective gun laws like California has to curb gun violence and illegal gun trafficking."

The Brady Campaign scorecards provide a new and redesigned analysis of whether states are enacting the laws needed to protect citizens from gun violence. The new scorecards also show states how their gun laws can be strengthened and their scores improved. Visit www.bradycampaign.org for more information.

Soundman
02-04-2008, 2:09 PM
In most states, there are few or no laws to prevent gun violence," says Paul Helmke, President of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. "This is true at the federal level as well.

:eek:
Apparently no one did ANY research on this topic. There are over 20k gun control laws in the United States, all of which claim to prevent gun violence.
I did a speech on gun control for a class and that was one of the first facts I found.

What Just Happened?
02-04-2008, 2:10 PM
Wait, what are our "effective gun laws"?

Liberty1
02-04-2008, 2:13 PM
says Paul Helmke, President of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence...."We need effective gun laws like California has to curb gun violence and illegal gun trafficking."...


Ahem, Mr Helmke!...this cop would like to know what Ca. laws have been effective in curbing gun violence and illegal gun trafficking?

12020?, 12025?, 12031?, 626.9?, AWB?, one pistol a month?, 10 day waiting period?, etc... Not from the view over my patrol car dashboard...as I sit taking a break using Starbucks wireless internet:p

gordoe
02-04-2008, 2:19 PM
KEYWORD: ILLEGAL gun trafficking! I swear these idiots think gun ethusiasts are pro-illegal guns when were the most law-abidding gun owners!

savasyn
02-04-2008, 2:24 PM
"We need effective gun laws like California has to curb gun violence and illegal gun trafficking."


Wait, if we have effective gun laws here, does that mean you guys will stop trying to pass more????

troyus
02-04-2008, 2:30 PM
effective gun laws == no guns

RRangel
02-04-2008, 2:50 PM
KEYWORD: ILLEGAL gun trafficking! I swear these idiots think gun ethusiasts are pro-illegal guns when were the most law-abidding gun owners!

No, they know quite well that we are in large part law abiding. That is the how you know their argument is disingenuous. They have a political agenda, and that is to see the United States citizen disarmed. These policies make some of these extremists "feel good", while others have an insidious plan for disarming us.

leelaw
02-04-2008, 5:58 PM
:eek:
Apparently no one did ANY research on this topic. There are over 20k gun control laws in the United States, all of which claim to prevent gun violence.
I did a speech on gun control for a class and that was one of the first facts I found.

I dunno, maybe those copies of "STATE LAWS AND PUBLISHED ORDINANCES - FIREARMS" and "FEDERAL LAWS - FIREARMS" books that the BATFE send me are just fabrications...

Damn The Man!!

just4fun63
02-04-2008, 6:03 PM
:banghead::puke:

mecam
02-04-2008, 6:19 PM
They should just make a bullet cost $5,000... :rofl2:
- Chris Rock -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdJGcrUk2eE

tombinghamthegreat
02-04-2008, 9:02 PM
:eek:
Apparently no one did ANY research on this topic. There are over 20k gun control laws in the United States, all of which claim to prevent gun violence.
I did a speech on gun control for a class and that was one of the first facts I found.

Me too. Once in 10th grade and i did a team debate recently in my 2nd year of college. Each time i did it i was overwelmed with facts on the pro gun side. So when politicans say ban guns or introduce more gun control, it is not for public safety but to take control. This idea of strong gun control/ gun ban, should be treated as if it is an act of war on society and all gun ban attempts should be stopped by any means necessery.

TheMan
02-04-2008, 9:40 PM
I dunno, maybe those copies of "STATE LAWS AND PUBLISHED ORDINANCES - FIREARMS" and "FEDERAL LAWS - FIREARMS" books that the BATFE send me are just fabrications...

Damn The Man!!

I'm just trying to keep everyone down :cool2:

Salty
02-05-2008, 2:12 AM
The "Owner Authorized Handgun" approach uses technology that allows only authorized handgun users to fire their weapon

Sounds great, curb gun violence by making guns even less affordable to the common man than they already are. I doubt many manufacturers would even build these proposed techno guns.

On a related note: everything on the Brady Campaign's website sounds like it was written by an angry 14 year old girl. There is little, if no logic in there statements, conclusions, and rebuttals.

Here are some example of there general lack of logic and communication skills:

Myth: Guns protect women from rape.

Fact: Guns are rarely used by rapists - less than 2 percent of rapes are committed with guns, while almost 70 percent are committed with personal weapons (physical violence).

So just because the rapist doesn't have a gun means that you can't defend your self with one?

Myth: Women need guns to protect against stranger rape.

Fact: Stranger rape is not the greatest danger for women.

and....

Myth: Handgun ownership increases womens ability to defend themselves.

Fact: In 1998, women were 101 times more likely to be murdered with a handgun than to use a handgun to kill in self-defense.

So you propose continuing that trend?

NRA MYTH #1:
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A SEMIAUTOMATIC ASSAULT WEAPON

Response: Wrong. The guns covered by the Assault Weapons Act are semiautomatic versions of fully automatic guns designed for military use.

Might as well have just said "waaaaaaa because I say so!!!"

NRA MYTH #6:
ASSAULT WEAPONS POSE NO SPECIAL THREAT TO LAW ENFORCEMENT

Response: False. In the 1980s and early 1990s, law enforcement reported that assault weapons were the "weapons of choice" for drug traffickers, gangs, terrorists, and paramilitary extremist groups that they often faced in violent encounters.

But what makes them a special threat? Weapon of choice is not the same as weapon most used.

NRA MYTH #8:
ASSAULT WEAPONS, AND HIGH-CAPACITY MAGAZINES THAT WERE BANNED AT THE SAME TIME, ARE NEEDED FOR SELF-DEFENSE

Response: False. As explained above, assault weapons utilize military features useful in combat, but which have no civilian purpose.

Says who? Oh.. you... right, I forgot...

I could go on and on...

Ford8N
02-05-2008, 4:23 AM
Sounds great, curb gun violence by making guns even less affordable to the common man than they already are. I doubt many manufacturers would even build these proposed techno guns.

On a related note: everything on the Brady Campaign's website sounds like it was written by an angry 14 year old girl. There is little, if no logic in there statements, conclusions, and rebuttals.

Here are some example of there general lack of logic and communication skills:



I could go on and on...


...and that shows you the intelligence of the average voter in this state. They suck up that logic from the Brady's like a sermon from Jesus.

1911A-1Fan
02-05-2008, 7:37 AM
1. If the police need higher capacity handgun magazines because they could be shot while reloading or before backup arrives, why are honest citizens prohibited in California from owning them? I am currently outgunned in my own home if someone tries to kick down the door, as has happened in our complex. A whacko who wants to shoot up a mall, on the other hand, has no problem using low capacity magazines pulled from a backpack, since no one can shoot back since honest citizens aren't allowed to conceal carry in California and stop the nut case.

2. Police ALWAYS prefer long-guns to side-arms for defending against an "active shooter." Why should I, an honest citizen, be prohibited from owning the same effective, self-defense oriented long-guns? Deers don't shoot back, hence the difference between "assault" rifles and "hunting" rifles. I should not be limited to a "hunting" rifle when I have absolutely no interest in killing deer etc. - when my only interest is protecting the life of my family. A 20 round .45 carbine strikes me as a minimum for home defense. Plus they need to be short enough to manipulate in hallways etc.

3. We need CCW desperately in California. Despite building more jails and enacting tougher laws, criminals are recycled out of jails all the time and new ones are born and raised and in many cases "trained" by their stints in prison or by friends or relatives on parole. Why aren't we allowed to carry to defend ourselves when criminals have easy access to guns and always will have no matter what laws are changed?

4. The prospect of CCW issuance makes me REALLY want to toe the line in terms of preserving the right to carry (just like wanting to avoid the "poisonous" misdemeanors etc. or inadvertently breaking our maze of gun laws). I am MORE THAN WILLING to take NRA safety and combat pistol classes.

5. #4 is my idea of a modern "militia." A trained, responsible citizenry that will be there when the police can't be. Two great examples: the "volunteer" armed security guard who stopped the church shooter. The off duty police office at the Utah mall who slowed down the crazy (who was in violation, even as a police officer, of mall rules and regulations about no concealed carry on their private property).

Make it your priority this year to lobby for CCW "shall issue" in California. Re-doing any of the confused laws on the books only lets the liberal legislators have a crack at making them worse.

THE POWER OF THE BRADY BUNCH IS VOTING AND LETTER WTITING. You can't exercise your OWN power if you don't register to vote AND vote. The government has detailed records on your voting history (not on WHO you voted for, but WHETHER you voted). Make it your personal goal to vote in EVERY election then letter write. You won't avoid those ugly jury duty notices by not registering - they have at least 3 other ways to catch up with you in that regard.

(I live in a small town situated in the middle of a major urban area; I vote in every election and show up at city hall to show my support or opposition for local issues. It's simply amazing how much respect you get from local politicians when you do that. It's not a question of being a gadfly or a jerk, it's a question of participation and voice. Sometimes it seems hopeless, particularly in the ultra-liberal, nearly socialist, last remaining bastion of communism San Francisco Bay area - but if we give up, the anti-gun left-wingers will rule the day.)

kap
02-05-2008, 8:28 AM
The "Owner Authorized Handgun" approach uses technology that allows only authorized handgun users to fire their weapon.

I wonder how long it would take to log on?

It looks like in addition to the new 16 Gb iPhone released today that Apple also released the iGun (http://www.urbanreflex.com/igun.html) too. Unfortunately it does not have a magazine disconnect or microstamping technology CA is screwed again.

tombinghamthegreat
02-05-2008, 4:10 PM
Warren vs. DC
Castle Rock v. Gonzales
DeShaney v. Winnebago County
These US Supreme Court cases ruled it is not the police department's job to protect you

This was a central part of my debate that the cops are not there to protect you. Many places in CA and the US the police presence is absent. Even if they do respond, it could take 15 minutes- 2 hours. The anti gunners avoid this arguement like the plague. In my debate their response was "why not use pepper spray and run away". In my situation with home intruters, the cops should up over 30 minutes later and said you better shoot them if more come back, we the police are not here to protect you.

packnrat
02-05-2008, 7:01 PM
i live in californa, and there are plenty of gangbangers with guns. how did they slip through the strong anti gun laws here??????:eek::TFH:

Dont Tread on Me
02-06-2008, 6:02 PM
So, there's going to be some kind of fingerprint recognition system inside the gun that mechanicly blocks it from firing? And somehow this system is going to be impervious to shock, solvents, and tamper proof? What's going to power it, a battery? Maybe the grips will be solar panels. Yea, that sounds feasable.

I recall a documentary on the technology for law enforcement use several years ago. It was just a finger print reader. Law enforcement turned it down as it was unreliable with blood and sweat on the hands.

M. Sage
02-06-2008, 6:10 PM
Law enforcement will probably turn down all the recognition tech for themselves. I can't see this stuff as being reliable either:

http://www.livescience.com/technology/070420_handgun_tech.html

It's supposed to recognize your grip, and allegedly works even through some gloves. However... how long and how much did you guys have to practice to get a consistent grasp every time you pick up a certain handgun? What's stress do to that grasp? How about if you need to use the handgun one-handed? Or maybe with your weak hand?

Yeah, right. Recognizes your grip. Good luck with that.

Also, guns are machines. It can't be hard to make the firing pin hit the primer, no matter how much tech they put in between the pin and the trigger.

deleted by PC police
02-06-2008, 6:38 PM
Warren vs. DC
Castle Rock v. Gonzales
DeShaney v. Winnebago County
These US Supreme Court cases ruled it is not the police department's job to protect you

This was a central part of my debate that the cops are not there to protect you. Many places in CA and the US the police presence is absent. Even if they do respond, it could take 15 minutes- 2 hours. The anti gunners avoid this arguement like the plague. In my debate their response was "why not use pepper spray and run away". In my situation with home intruters, the cops should up over 30 minutes later and said you better shoot them if more come back, we the police are not here to protect you.

Someone fired two arrows from a compound bow (I think) at my house from the golf course in my back yard. I called the cops and waited for four hours before calling them and telling them to forget it. So someone fired a deadly weapon at my property, close enough to stick it into a beam above the table I used to sit and smoke at at night and the cops don't show up?? What kinda crap is that? California law makes it illegal to have a nightvision scope so if I had to defend myself against these bow and arrow wielding thugs I wouldn't have been able to legally. Or at least I wouldn't have been able to see them.

Librarian
02-06-2008, 7:30 PM
California law makes it illegal to have a nightvision scope No, it doesn't. You just can't have an infrared projector AND amplification/magnification. See this thread: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=83684

Salty
02-06-2008, 10:40 PM
Someone fired two arrows from a compound bow (I think) at my house from the golf course in my back yard. I called the cops and waited for four hours before calling them and telling them to forget it. So someone fired a deadly weapon at my property, close enough to stick it into a beam above the table I used to sit and smoke at at night and the cops don't show up?? What kinda crap is that? California law makes it illegal to have a nightvision scope so if I had to defend myself against these bow and arrow wielding thugs I wouldn't have been able to legally. Or at least I wouldn't have been able to see them.

If I was in your situation I might consider a few nice bright flood lights with a switch inside near the back door and a hidden switch outside. Could also hook up an IR trip wire or motion sensor. Hell, how about some IR tripped sprinklers!

Someone was trying to kick my back door in a few months ago around 3am or so. I grabbed a rifle and turned on the lights (inside the house) and they ran away before I got a chance to see um'.
I would have preferred they go to jail. But honestly I'd rather have them run away than get into any type of face to face confrontation, especially at 3am when I'm all groggy and such.